[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <680316ba-5e28-42f2-9e83-8c48af78b785@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 17:51:29 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <kathiravan.thirumoorthy@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, Guenter Roeck
<linux@...ck-us.net>, Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@...cinc.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] dt-bindings: watchdog: qcom-wdt: Document
qcom,imem property
On 28/05/2025 19:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> Krzysztof, Based on the discussions from the previous versions, I have made the changes. Can you help to guide me on how to handle this? Should I just name the property as "sram" and point to the sub block in the IMEM region like how it is done at [1][2], which is more or like similar to what I have submitted in V1 of this series[3] Or is the current approach acceptable? Or some other way to handle this?
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250523-topic-ipa_imem-v1-1-b5d536291c7f@oss.qualcomm.com/T/#u
>>
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250523-topic-ipa_imem-v1-2-b5d536291c7f@oss.qualcomm.com/T/#u
>>
>> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250408-wdt_reset_reason-v1-0-e6ec30c2c926@oss.qualcomm.com/
>
> Let's go with desired-value-in-dt here.. I don't trust the firmware
> to never change. `sram` is prooobably fine, let's hear from Krzysztof
>
I propose to go with 'sram' property.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists